Talk:Thorpe affair

Question over homosexuality in the text

At the time I'm typing this, the article contains the following:

QUOTE:

The scandal arose from allegations by Norman Josiffe (otherwise known as Norman Scott) that he and Thorpe had a homosexual relationship in the early 1960s, and that Thorpe had begun a badly planned conspiracy to murder Josiffe, who was threatening to expose their affair. {NEW PARAGRAPH} Thorpe, while admitting that the two had been friends, denied any such relationship. With the help of political colleagues and a compliant press, he was able to ensure that rumours of misconduct went unreported for more than a decade.

UNQUOTE

Wow. Okay, so at first we are talking about "allegations" of a "homosexual relationship". Then we are talking about "rumours of misconduct". How did we get from "homosexual relationship" to "misconduct" without first introducing somehow someway some kind of argument that a "homosexual relationship" is "misconduct"? Maybe homosexuality was still illegal at the time the relationship was occurring, but to argue that that qualifies as "misconduct" is to act as an advocate for the theory that the law is always the correct arbiter and source of what is "misconduct". Why should someone be allowed to be such an advocate in an encyclopedia which should be neutral on the proposition that the law is always correct and that if the law says that something qualifies as "misconduct" then that's not merely the point of view of the people who enacted the law but is some kind of absolute truth, and that, therefore, the thing IS, by the statement of the law alone, "misconduct"? That's rather like saying smoking pot in one's own home in the 1950s was "misconduct" or that helping slaves escape in the 1850s was "misconduct". Since when does Wikipedia take the position that the law is the thing that has say-so on this score? If the problem is that the homosexuality was during a heterosexual marriage and was therefore adultery, change the phrase to read "rumours of adultery". If the problem is that an MP was doing something illegal (if it was the case that homosexuality per se was still illegal at the time), then change the phrase to "rumours of illegal conduct". But "rumours of midsconduct", without some kind of declaration that the author of that phrase considers homosexuality to be "misconduct", and some kind of a link to a page where the author tries to make the case that homosexuality is misconduct, is absolutely beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, which oughtn't to have an opinion about what is and what is not "misconduct". Wikipedia is guilty of misconduct here.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

There is nothing ‘anti-homosexual’ in the article, despite your massive stretch of misinterpretation. The text reflects the sources, which reflect the facts of the time. After the story broke, Thorpe was accused of misconduct in his love life (as opposed to the reaction over the criminal action): that was the reaction of public and press at the time. And there is no ‘misconduct’ by the writer or Wikipedia, despite your hyperbole.

Addendum: You asked 'How did we get from "homosexual relationship" to "misconduct" without first introducing somehow someway some kind of argument that a "homosexual relationship" is "misconduct"'. Can I direct your gaze to the section "Homosexuality and English law, which explains just that. It gives the all important legal-historical context for the events. - SchroCat (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur with SchroCat's reading of the article. This is a Featured Article. Six editors reviewed it at peer review, and nine reviewers supported its promotion to FA at the FAC. I think this is a case of "everyone's out of step but Charlie". As it happens, I am gay (as the main author, the late Brian Boulton, a friend IRL, knew perfectly well) and I had and have no problem with the text. Tim riley talk 07:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Later: I've just looked "misconduct" up in the Oxford English Dictionary (2023): "Improper or unacceptable conduct or behaviour. Frequently, esp. in Law (euphemistic): adultery or other illicit sexual activity". Tim riley talk 08:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)